On 29 jan, 21:56, Luke Kanies <l...@madstop.com> wrote:
> I'd say the answer depends on how often you have consistent groupings.

It's more about inconsistencies :-)

> If the list of mounts that a given service or host uses is relatively  
> arbitrary, then there's no real way to get away from the 'realize'  
> calls.
>
> On the other hand, if the mounts tend to follow natural groupings,  
> then you could create a few sets of classes with the realize() calls  
> in them.

Well, actually things are even worse than I thought. I'm new to the
system we're trying to "puppetize":  lots of mounts all over the place
(NFS-happy people over here).

So first I'm going to find map what is needed where with what options
(RO/RW...). Bit of a nightmare but highly needed. :-/

> Either way there is at least somewhat of a win because your  
> configuration data is normalized:  You only have mount details (other  
> than name) in one place in your configuration, for a given mount entry.

Yep, you're right.

> There is a third way, though; this won't work for all situations, but  
> you could tag your mounts with various metadata, and then use a query  
> to pull down mounts tagged a certain way.  E.g., here's my simple test  
> that demonstrated this works:
>
> @notify { "It worked!": tag => [yay, ness] }
>
> Notify <| tag == yay |>
>
> This allows you to build arbitrary metadata around your resources, and  
> then add them to the catalog without literal listings.

Will dig into this too.

Thanks for your input !

--
Calimero
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to